From Inksters Solicitors

Tag Archives: West Highland Free Press

Rural Economy Secretary, Fergus Ewing, has asked the Crofting Commission to take urgent action to improve performance in crucial areas following the publication of the Governance Review [PDF] undertaken on the instruction of the Scottish Government by business advisors and accountancy firm Scott-Moncrieff.

A full action plan including prioritising work to deliver the necessary improvements in the way regulatory cases and Board proceedings are managed will be delivered in response to the findings of the Governance Review.

Governance standards, procedures and other arrangements, at both executive and non-executive levels, to underpin effective decision-making, particularly in relation to the Bohuntin, Upper Coll and Mangersta Common Grazings cases [Note: The review did not look at the regulatory decisions themselves]

Arrangements for handling conflicts of interest

Ensuring that capacity building and development needs of Board members are met and that the necessary training is provided.

Rural Economy Secretary, Fergus Ewing, said:-

This review highlights notable and worrying failures in the governance of the crofting commission which must be improved immediately. That is why I have asked the new Chief Executive to urgently prepare an action plan to take this forward.

Crofting is an integral part of Scottish rural life and it is essential that it has an effective regulator. This review, and the action plan which will follow, must help to deliver the necessary changes and ensure the commission is able to lead the crofting industry forward.

Crofting Commission Chief Executive, Bill Barron, said:-

A number of important points have been made in the governance review and we are committed to ensuring robust processes are in place to achieve a high standard of governance within the organisation. I will be putting in place a full action plan to ensure these points are addressed, as requested by the Rural Economy Secretary.

We have already made some of the improvements recommended in the review and we are developing a comprehensive induction programme for the new Board of Commissioners following the elections in March 2017.

Continuous improvement within the Commission, and building on the recommendations from the review, will help us to create a focussed and effective organisation working to secure the future of crofting.

The Scottish Crofting Federation has welcomed the pledge by the Scottish Government to put in place an action plan to address the failures highlighted by the Governance Review. Their Chair, Russell Smith, said:-

The Governance Review of the Crofting Commission, instigated by Scottish Government at our request, has exposed many weaknesses in basic operating procedures and in how the organisation copes with extraordinary individual behaviours. The review has made it clear that a robust Commissioner appraisal process is required, to help identify and deliver ongoing training and skills development. We are particularly keen to see a rationalisation of the roles of Commissioners, establishing when they should be delegating to the executive staff or referring to other bodies that have the required expertise. Commissioners should have a strategic and advisory capacity only. It is clear that they got too involved with executive procedures that they did not have the competence or remit for.

The review team recognises the huge damage done to the reputation of the Commission by the in-fighting and particularly that the vote of no confidence in the convener did not achieve a tangible result, that is, his removal. Frustratingly, the review does not suggest how this will be resolved, though the government’s recent exoneration will open up options.

It is alarming that the review team found there to be fundamental inconsistencies and gaps in records of events that led to the breakdown of the organisation. This appears to have handicapped the review to an extent, and is telling in itself.

The list of areas for improvement is long and the minister for crofting, Mr Fergus Ewing, has instructed that an action plan to address them be put in place as a matter of urgency. This will, we hope, sort out some of the fundamental issues that allowed the near collapse of this significant organisation. We are strongly of the opinion that the purpose and role of Commissioners needs to be appraised and a clear boundary to be set between their overseeing strategy and the staff’s executive function. This seems critical to the health of the Crofting Commission.

No comment appears to have been made by the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, on the “notable and worrying failures” found whilst he was at the helm.

Mr Kennedy has, however, as part of his campaign for re-election to the South West Highlands seat on the Crofting Commission, stated to The Oban Times that his “experience prompted” him “to make representations to the Scottish Government, which included insisting an external review was required to establish what was, or was not, going on“. One would, therefore, think that the review was instigated at the insistence of Mr Kennedy!

In 1883 a Royal Commission (The Napier Commission) was set up by Gladstone’s Liberal Government. Its purpose was ‘to inquire into the conditions of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland’ and everything concerning them. This came on the back of The Highland Clearances and ‘The Battle of the Braes’ where the Braes crofters stood up against the 50 policemen brought in from Glasgow following the loss of their hill pasture on Ben Lee and a rent strike in protest. The Report by the Napier Commission resulted in the first Crofters Act in 1886 providing security of tenure for crofters.

130 years after security of tenure was given to crofters a new form of clearance is happening in the Highlands and Islands: The clearance of common grazings committees by the Crofting Commission. They are wielding power in an unjustified and brutal manner reminiscent of landlords from the nineteenth century. We are about to see I believe ‘The Battle of Great Glen House’ (this time perhaps fought with paper and ink rather than stones) and the Scottish Government must now institute an inquiry into the actings of the Crofting Commission and everything concerning them.

The meeting was unequivocal in its opinion of the Crofting Commission’s conduct. As well as a vote of no confidence in the Commission, the meeting thought that it would be appropriate for the convener of the Commission to stand aside whilst an investigation is carried out into the summary dismissals of grazings committees and the internal procedures of the Commission that has led to this debacle. The Scottish Crofting Federation fully supports this.

So, no, it was not Colin Kennedy who asked for the Governance Review. But it was his actions that were certainly behind the call by the many who did want to see such a review and are not surprised at all by its findings. I will consider those findings in some detail in future posts on this blog.

The Crofting Commission can stop your questions by simply not answering them!

The Cross-Party Group on Crofting has been waiting patiently on answers to 18 questions that they posed to the Crofting Commission. These were originally sent to the Crofting Commission in July 2016 then modified and sent in October 2016.

Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission cannot revisit its own decisions?

Why did the Crofting Commission chose to remove three grazings committees instead of work with them to improve things, if things needed improvement?

Why were grazings shareholders not given the chance to elect a new committee when the Crofting Commission removed their committee, instead of moving straight to the appointment of a grazings constable?

Does a removed committee have a right of appeal to the Crofting Commission?

Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission has the power to appoint a Grazings Constable when they remove members of a grazing committee from office?

Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission can extend the appointment of a Grazings Constable?

Why is the Crofting Commission ignoring its own guidelines on the investigation of financial irregularities?

Does the Crofting Commission maintain that all funds in a grazings bank account have to be disbursed immediately (including SRDP grants, as Mr MacLennan stated is the bulk of funds in the CPGoC)?

If there are 3 levels of accounting as outlined by Mr MacLennan (examination by external qualified person such as local retired bank manager, prepared by qualified accountant on information supplied, full forensic audit), what are the thresholds at which each is required? Do they apply to balance or income? Who decides what is appropriate (given this was the reason Mr MacLennan gave for the Upper Coll grazings committee being removed by the Crofting Commission?)

Why did the convener of the Crofting Commission involve himself in every one of these three cases and committee removals? Is this the job of a convener?

Did the convener of the Crofting Commission declare his interest in the cases when the commissioners made their decision to move to removal?

Does the Crofting Commission consider value for public money when pursuing cases?

Mr MacLennan emphasised that the Crofting Commission were obliged to act as a shareholder had made a complaint. This does not square with the Commission’s dealings relating to other regulatory matters. We are aware of complaints made by shareholders with regard to absenteeism and neglect of crofts that go many years without commission action so it would be good to know why you are so diligent in pursuing grazings committees with such rigour. Has there been a policy change to target this type of regulatory issue (as there was previously with absentees)?

Following the letter written to the Convener by Fergus Ewing concerning disbursement of common grazings funds to shareholders and SRDP funding there were mixed messages issued to the press by Commissioners. It appeared that the contents of the letter was supported but the Commission (or perhaps certain Commissioners) still thought they had done nothing wrong. Those two statements do not sit well next to one another. Can the Commission clarify their actual stance on the letter in clear terms for the benefit of this Group.

Can the Commission explain why they have been questioning SRDP funding for and VAT Registration by Common Grazings?

The Commission appear to be supporting their ‘constable’ Colin Souter and his behaviour at Upper Coll. Do they actually support a ‘constable’ who is having meetings with 4 shareholders and making decisions affecting 42 shareholders when 26 out of those 42 have signed a petition calling for his removal?

Will the Commission advise the Group what remit was given to Constable Souter and why he appeared to be acting in an investigatory role rather than as an actual clerk.

The latest revelation appears to be matters being decided by Commissioners via ‘brown envelopes’ rather than at board meetings. Can the Commission enlighten us further on this?

There were, in addition, two questions specifically posed to the Crofting Commission via the Cross-Party Group on Crofting by Iain MacKinnon on 1 November 2016:-

I would like to draw your attention to a letter by Colin Kennedy published this month in the Scottish Farmer. In the letter he draws the Scottish Crofting Federation’s attention to ‘the commission mole’ at the time of the ‘Susan Walker debacle’. Presumably he is referring here to the anonymous commissioner quoted by the West Highland Free Press when information was leaked to the paper and other media outlets about a letter signed by five commissioners – including Mr Kennedy – calling a meeting to discuss a potential vote of no confidence in Ms Walker. Mr Kennedy told the Scottish Farmer this month:

‘I can assure the SCF that prior to my becoming convener, the mole was identified and the information was provided to the appropriate persons to take the matter forward.’

At the Cross Party Group on Crofting’s meeting on 15th September last year, Jean Urquhart asked Mr Kennedy about the leak to the press.

He was unable to give her an answer and did not identify any ‘mole’ on that occasion. However, the then chief executive of the organisation was able to respond and this is noted in the minutes as follows:

‘What is being done about the fact that there was a leak to the press from a commissioner, which is a breach of the code of conduct?

While a newspaper claimed their was leak by a Commissioner, as Accountable Officer the CEO has carried out an internal investigation which found no evidence that any Commissioner had breached the code of conduct by leaking information on the matter to the press.’

I would like to hear from the Commission’s representative at the meeting how they reconcile these two statements and to ask again, in light of Mr Kennedy’s claim: what is being done about the leak to the press; and who was the ‘mole’ as described by Mr Kennedy in his letter to The Scottish Farmer.

Six months after the first questions were put to the Crofting Commission their Interim Chief Executive, Bill Barron, addressed them at the Cross-Party Group meeting at Holyrood on 25 January 2017 by stating that he didn’t intend to answer them but would like, instead, “to focus on the future“. He wanted to “draw a line under the rows of last year“. He acknowledged that “things had been done wrong” but there was “no merit in unpicking all of that“.

Some of the specific issues raised in your questions have already been clarified by the Commission. For example, we have confirmed that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position that there is nothing in the CAP rules that prevents the Scottish Government approving an SRDP application made by a grazings committee, and that we agree with the Scottish Government’s position regarding immediate disbursement of funds.

These, however, are two points that the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, still appears to be taking issue with and possibly still taking a contrary position on compared to his fellow commissioners and the official line of the Crofting Commission. This is all contrary to the doctrine of collective corporate responsibility. Indeed it is interesting to note that following the departure from the Crofting Commission of their former Convener, Susan Walker, Colin Kennedy, then Vice Convener, stated [PDF: Board Minutes – 13 May 2015]:-

I am sure that I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that today we are all equal with collective responsibility. In fact we are all Conveners, working together for the betterment of the Crofting Commission.

However, his publicly opposing views to that of the board clearly conflict with that statement.

While Board members must be ready to offer constructive challenge, they must also share collective responsibility for decisions taken by the Board as a whole. If they fundamentally disagree with the decision taken by the Board, they have the option of recording their disagreement in the minutes. However, ultimately, they must either accept and support the collective decision of the Board – or resign.

Colin Kennedy was not in attendance at the Cross-Party Group meeting on Wednesday night. He has only attended one meeting out of the five that have taken place since the start of the current Parliamentary term.

At the meeting in Holyrood on Wednesday night the Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Russell Smith, asked Bill Barron if Colin Kennedy was still Convener and was still chairing Board meetings. Bill Barron answered both questions in the affirmative. Russell Smith then asked if the Board was working as it should to which Bill Barron replied “it is not easy but it is getting its work done“. How well, under the circumstances, it is getting its work done is, however, very debatable.

On the points raised by Ian MacKinnon the response from Bill Barron was:-

The same [i.e. not answering the questions] holds for Iain MacKinnon’s questions about a leak to the press, which was investigated by the previous CEO in 2015. Colin Kennedy’s more recent public comments about this appear to have been made in a personal capacity, but I can confirm that the Commission has no plans to re-examine this matter. Instead, my priority is to look forward to the upcoming elections and to prepare to give the best possible support to the new Board.

So it is all about looking forward and not looking back. However, you sometimes have to look back to learn from your mistakes before you can move forward and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Perhaps the Scottish Government’s review into the governance of the Crofting Commission will reflect more on the mistakes of the past and what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence of them. The Cross-Party Group on Crofting was advised on Wednesday by Gordon Jackson, Head of Rural Business Development and Land Tenure at the Scottish Government, that this review will be published “shortly“.

For the last three months the Crofting Commission has not been dysfunctional. it has been non-existent.

As the Crofting Commission is the regulatory body of almost 20,000 crofts occupied by over 30,000 people – including around half of the combined populations of the Western Isles, Skye and the west Highlands – that is plainly unacceptable.

This dire state of affairs originated in the persecution of grazings committees in Lewis and Lochaber by the commission’s convener, Colin Kennedy.

Following a widespread outcry, Mr Kennedy’s edicts were overthrown and he was ordered by the crofting minister, Fergus Ewing, to retreat and apologise.

In September the rest of the commissioners issued their own apology and passed a vote of no confidence in Colin Kennedy, who had stalked out of the meeting.

In the real world, that would have been that. Mr Kennedy would have vacated the convener’s chair. The Crofting Commission would have dusted itself down and continued to do its duties as best as possible.

In the unreal world of the Crofting Commission chaos ensued.

Colin Kennedy has refused to accept the censure of both the Scottish Government and his colleagues on the Crofting Commission. Even more remarkably, the other commissioners and the crofting minister seem prepared to accept this.

As we go to press on Wednesday the Crofting Commission is meeting in Inverness. Following recent form, we have no idea what will transpire. It could be anything from another walk-out to a song and dance act in the grounds of Great Glen House.

It is possible that the commission will settle for a quiet life and accept the status quo – Colin Kennedy included – until its elections next March.

That would mean three months of a non-existent Crofting Commission followed by three months of a dispirited and barely functional Crofting Commission.

Why has the crofting minister allowed this to occur?

View from the Crofting Law Blog

The WHFP have a greater grasp of the situation and have been more vocal than most news papers in calling for a resolution thereof by the Scottish Government over the past few months.

They are as perplexed as I, and many others are, at the dithering on the part of the Scottish Government over it.

Unfortunately a song and dance act in the grounds of Great Glen House did not take place at the board meeting underway as the WHFP went to press that Wednesday. Perhaps that is being saved until the Scottish Government does take the action that it really needs to take 😉

Another walk-out was nearer the mark as will be revealed in our next blog post.

It is over a week since my last blog post. Not because it has been quiet in the world of crofting law but because I’ve been away in Milan. I didn’t quite escape crofting law whilst there as I had a meeting where a translator turned my crofting law advice into Italian. I hope nothing was lost in translation. Not sure what the Italian is for souming!

Last time I was away from the UK I commented that there was ‘no let up on the common grazings crisis whilst on holiday‘. Much the same this time around. Especially due to the fact that the ‘twa Colins’ (as they have become known in the comments section of this blog) are, somewhat incredulously, still in post.

Colin Souter, the Grazings ‘Constable‘ of Upper Coll, still seems to hold that ‘position’ despite the Crofting Commission announcing over three weeks ago that he would be stepping down “as soon as possible“. Why has he not stepped down or been stepped down?

Colin Souter has been uncharacteristically quiet during that period. Whereas Colin Kennedy, Convener of the Crofting Commission, has been uncharacteristically vocal. My last blog post looked at his crofting ‘crusade‘ as revealed in The Scottish Farmer. A week later and The Scottish Farmer have published a letter from Colin Kennedy which starts with an attack on the Scottish Crofting Federation, rambles on a bit and is cryptic in places but seems to be blaming the former Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean, for everything that everyone else has been blaming him for. I will look at that, and the further breaches of the code of conduct by Mr Kennedy arising therefrom, in a future blog post.

Kennedy is the renegade commissioner who is breaking almost all, if not every, ethical standard expected of public office holders. The Editor of the West Highland Free Press wondered a couple of weeks ago how Kennedy had still not received his P45. Patrick Krause, Chief Executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation, writing in the Press & Journal around the same time expected this “Ozymandias with delusions of grandeur” to have been toppled by now.

The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, referred to Kennedy’s behaviour as “disappointing” and hinted at the powers the Scottish Ministers had to remove him. Since then he has gone on a personal tirade against those very ministers, his commissioner colleagues and commission staff. How has he been allowed to go on like this? Who is in control? What message does this send out to crofters and the general electorate? Where and how will it all end?

I referred earlier to “former” Chief Executive, Catriona Maclean, because her replacement on an interim basis, Bill Barron, started work at Great Glen House on Monday. I will also look at that in more detail in a future blog post.

However, how can this new interim Chief Executive be expected to effectively operate an organisation where the Convener has gone renegade? Where that convener does not have the support of the other commissioners, the Scottish Ministers, any of the crofting representative bodies or the vast majority of crofters? Could the role be any more of a poisoned chalice?

What else happened over the past week? Well:-

The closing date came and went for applications for the two appointed Crofting Commissioner posts.

Top search terms leading people to this blog were “Colin Kennedy Crofting Commission” and “the Marquis & Marchioness of Stafford”. I have previously drawn comparisons.

Comments on the blog took on a Star Trek theme making a change from Star Wars analogies. The Dark Side have become the Klingons it would appear 😉

Revelations of baboon-a-grams being advertised on the Isle of Coll emerged. We are searching the News of the World archives for more on this story which just might eclipse the Convener’s Throne for amusement value.

It would appear that back issues of the News of the World, Press & Journal and Oban Times also hold other interesting stories about the Isle of Coll. We will see what our research turns up.

Crofting road shows will be taking place to inform crofters about the Crofting Commission elections and other crofting issues.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has launched a call for written evidence to help inform its short, focussed review of priorities for crofting law reform.

Crofting Election Regulations have been put before the Scottish Parliament but these make no changes, as previously mooted, to the six constituency boundaries.

A week is clearly a long time in crofting law!

More detail on some of these stories will appear in future blog posts. Do subscribe to this blog by inserting your e-mail address in the box in the top right of this page and press ‘Subscribe’. You will then receive the latest blog posts directly into your mail box as soon as they are published. You don’t want to miss that baboon-a-gram story 😉

Another hard hitting editorial appeared in this week’s West Highland Free Press (14 October 2016). It was entitled ‘The Convener who just would not go‘. It follows on from their editorial two week’s ago in which it was suggested that by walking out on the Crofting Commission Board meeting in Brora Colin Kennedy “abandoned the convenership“.

This week the editorial expressed amazement that two weeks later he was still in post. Again we reproduce it here as an important part of our archive on ‘The Common Clearances‘:-

If Colin Kennedy is still convener of the Crofting Commission when Fergus Ewing MSP reads this, we suggest that the crofting minister steps outside and personally puts Mr Kennedy’s P45 in the post.

It is more than two weeks since the crofting minister deplored Colin Kennedy’s convenership. It is more than two weeks since his remaining colleagues on the Crofting Commission unanimously called on Mr Kennedy to resign as their convener, and issued in his absence a grovelling apology for his actions.

Colin Kennedy may still have an electoral base of the 216 crofter voters in the south-west Highlands who elected him as their representative four years ago. He is not being asked to vacate his position as their commissioner.

But as convener he has lost the support of the rest of the Crofting Commission, the Scottish Government, most crofters elsewhere in the country and the Scottish Crofting Federation.

His position has been untenable since he abandoned that meeting on the morning of Wednesday 28th September. But bizarrely, he has refused to vacate it. On the contrary, he has announced his intention to stay in post!

We understand that Mr Kennedy finds it difficult to accept that he has done anything wrong, in Lewis or elsewhere, although the crofters of Upper Coll and Mangersta might disagree.

We understand that he feels himself to have been betrayed by other commissioners who supported him during most of his term in office.

Those considerations are irrelevant. Every day that Colin Kennedy clings on to his convenership brings both the Crofting Commission and crofting itself into further disrepute.

That may, at this point, be Colin Kennedy’s intention. He should not be abetted by the indecision of the crofting minister. Fergus Ewing has the power to remove Mr Kennedy. He should exercise that power without any more delay.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

I, like many others, can only agree with the sentiments expressed by the WHFP. However, I might question their suggestion that Colin Kennedy is not being asked to vacate his position as a commissioner. Can he really be removed as Convener but not as Commissioner?

The relative provisions in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 refer to removal of a member who is unable or unfit to exercise the functions of a member or unsuitable to continue as a member.

Thus they relate to the removal of a member not removal from the office of convener. Removal of a convener would appear to involve removal of the member who happens to be the convener. On removal they would cease to be convener but also cease to be a board member.

In any event if it is necessary to strip a commissioner of the convenership could that commissioner really be suitable to continue as a member of the board of the Crofting Commission?

By walking out of a Crofting Commission meeting in Brora yesterday (Wednesday) because everything was not going his own way, Colin Kennedy abandoned the convenership in the same disgracefully arrogant manner with which he has held the position for the last 15 months. Few tears should be shed.

In other words, according to the crofting minister, throughout this whole sorry affair the Crofting Commission has been completely wrong in both its legislative interpretation and procedural actions.

The commission was wrong to consider that the locally-elected grazings committees at Upper Coll and Mangersta had been constitutionally at fault. It was also wrong to sack them.

There can be few graver charges laid at the door of crofting’s regulatory body. Its punishment is to publish a humiliating confession of its sins, and to submit to a review of its practices by Scottish Government officials.

More than anybody else, Mr Kennedy spearheaded the assault on the grazings committees. In doing so he at least demeaned and possibly also subverted his office.

If one thing was certain following Mr Ewing’s intervention before Wednesday’s meeting in Brora, it was that Colin Kennedy could no longer stay on as convener. All that remained was the manner of his leaving. It could have been gracious or it could have been petulant. It was of course the latter.

The remnants of the Crofting Commission was left to compose its letter of apology. Once that task was completed, before dusting itself down and attempting to resume normal and responsible service, it must tie up another loose end from Mr Kennedy’s convenership.

The commission should instantly remove its constable, Colin Souter, from Upper Coll. The imposition of Mr Souter on that part of Lewis was a grossly insulting over-reaction. He should never have been sent there in the first place.

In the words of the Scottish Crofting Federation’s Fiona Mandeville, Constable Souter “has no place in crofting, is aggravating bad feeling and is standing in the way of democratic process”.

Colin Souter’s continuing presence on the east side of Lewis is reminiscent of the Highland authorities’ response to the 19th century land war. It has no place in the 21st century.

But if free votes have bad outcomes, they can also correct their mistakes.

If Mr Kennedy hangs around, stands and is re-elected by the voters of Lochaber, Argyll and Bute, Arran and Cumbrae and the Small Isles next March, that will be their right and their responsibility. We hope, however that the crofters of the south-west Highlands have enough decency and sense to choose an alternative.

Other commissioners should and doubtless are taking long hard looks at their positions.

They have all been complicit, to one degree or another, in this fiasco. Murdo MacLennan was returned from Lewis with the biggest vote of all. For all of his experience and affability, Mr MacLennan has not defended the crofters of his own constituency from his convener’s excesses.

If, as we have often suggested, the size of the Western Isles crofting constituency was property respected and it had two or three elected commissioners, Colin Kennedy might have found some opposition within the commission’s ranks – and the grazings committees of Upper Coll and Mangersta might not have been dragged through the mire.

As things stand, Murdo MacLennan is the only Western Isles representative on the Crofting Commission. In this important instance, however reluctantly and for whatever reasons, he has failed his voters. If he also stands for re-election, he might not expect many voters from Upper Coll next spring. Whether or not the crofters of the rest of Lewis stick with him is their decision. We suggest that it is time for a change there also.

It may not be his worst offence, but Colin Kennedy’s Crofting Commission has given ammunition to those who will suggest that crofters are incapable of managing their own affairs.

Crofters themselves can refute that charge. Six months from now they will once again be asked to vote for crofting commissioners.

In the elections of 2012 the turnout was low. In both the Western Isles and in Skye and the West Highlands, only half of crofters bothered to vote.

That turnout should increase significantly next spring. Crofters everywhere know by now how much is at stake. The least they can demand of their commissioner candidates is that they refrain from mounting concerted attacks on grazings committees.

In a hard hitting editorial in the latest edition (16 September 2016) of the West Highland Free Press it was made clear by the editor that he considers that the Crofting Commission needs ministerial advice and direction and that Colin Kennedy’s continuing tenure as Convener must be in doubt.

I will reproduce the editorial in question here followed by some of my own thoughts on the matter

The Crofting Commission needs ministerial advice and direction

The self-created crisis within the Crofting Commission has gone past the point where it can be healed internally. Public and decisive ministerial intervention is now required.

On the most mundane but incendiary points which lit the blaze, the Crofting Commission can be pronounced quite wrong.

Grazings committees should have the right to determine in which manner their income is spent, under the law and to the benefit of the community.

Grazings committees such as those at Upper Coll and Mangersta should not be obliged instantly to distribute funds as dividends and then reclaim the money in order to finance improvements.

Without those commonplace – and previously widely accepted – permissions, west-coast crofting in particular would suffer.

Grazings committees, which are the voluntary foundation of the system, would become almost impossible to establish. It should be pointed out here that crofting commissioners are paid £8,600 a year for four-and-a-half days’ work a month, and the commissioner’s convener is paid £20,300 for an eight-day month. Grazings committee member are paid nothing.

Crofting would become even less of a communal activity and even more of a private, individual enterprise. It beggars belief that a large reason for the recent dictatorial action by the Crofting Commission was the fact that Upper Coll grazings committee made assets available to infrastructure projects which benefited not only crofters but also the wider community.

In the three years of its existence the present Crofting Commission has managed to lose three of its seven members, and its chief executive Catriona Maclean has now packed her bags and moved on to happier pastures.

By any standards, this is a failing institution. The response of the new crofting minister, Fergus Ewing, has been inadequate.

Last month Mr Ewing wrote a private letter to the commission’s controversial chair, Colin Kennedy. In that letter the crofting minister told Mr Kennedy that he and the Scottish Government “wholly disagreed” with the Crofting Commission’s actions and attitudes towards grazings committees.

Most importantly, Fergus Ewing wrote that as crofting minister he considers that the law “does not require the immediate disbursement or pay out of funds by a grazings committee”.

In other words, Colin Kennedy’s interpretation of crofting law had been wrong from the start. As a result all of his subsequent actions had been, at best, invalid.

This private letter was then leaked to the veteran BBC Highland correspondent Jackie O’Brien. It seems probable that Mr Ewing authorised the leak in order to shore up his credentials with crofters.

That also was unacceptable. As crofting minister Mr Ewing has a duty to be open and transparent in the exercise of his responsibility. He is not just another interested observer.

He also has a duty to the crofting community to ensure that its governing body adheres to best practice and does not trample crofters into the ground. Colin Kennedy’s Crofting Commission is currently preparing “draft guidance” for grazings committees. We hope that Fergus Ewing is fully involved in that exercise. We wait to see whether that guidance will follow the Kennedy or the Ewing version of legislation. There can be no compromise. It is difficult to see how Mr Kennedy can emerge from the process with his £20,000 part-time post intact.

This unpleasant chain of events should not shake our belief in democracy. We continue to believe that the entire Crofting Commission should be elected by crofters rather than composed of professional quangoteers and other government appointees.

Many hundred of crofters in large parts of the Highlands and Islands cast their votes ill-advisedly three years ago, and a lot of them will now realise that.

Thanks to the democratic system, they will have the chance to put things right at the elections next spring. We hope that they, and the many crofters who previously chose not to vote, will take that chance. In the long as well as the short term, the future of crofting is at stake.

View from the Crofting Law Blog

I must wholeheartedly agree with this editorial in so far as the need for “public and decisive ministerial intervention”. Indeed I suggested that in my first blog post on this sorry saga back on 25 April 2016. There have been calls since by the Crofting Federation and by crofters for the same thing. To see the West Highland Free Press support the same calls is heartening indeed and must add to the pressure on Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for crofting, to do something about it.

The jury is still out as far as I am concerned about the idea of the entire Crofting Commission being elected by crofters “rather than composed of professional quangoteers and other government appointees”. The problems at the Crofting Commission seem to lie at the door of elected commissioners or perhaps an elected commissioner. Two of the government appointees (who by all accounts were very able and capable commissioners) have resigned in recent times and have yet to be replaced.

The calibre of elected commissioners may be very much down to those willing to put themselves up for election rather than the will of the crofting electorate.

With the Crofting Commission in its current mess there is a good chance that there won’t be many level headed crofters volunteering for the task of clearing that mess up come the 2017 elections. Possibly another solution is required. Answers on the back of a postcard please to Fergus Ewing MSP.

Our last post on this blog raised once more the issue of conflict of interest on the part of the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, over the Upper Coll affair. This, for completeness, is a good point to remind readers of the detail of that conflict of interest. We therefore now reproduce, with the author’s kind permission, a letter by Dr Iain MacKinnon that first appeared in the West Highland Free Press in July 2016:-

When that decision was made the Commission were in the process of investigating complaints from crofters at Upper Coll about the way in which Mr Kennedy had chaired a meeting in Upper Coll in November to discuss the grazings issue.

In light of this, Mr Kennedy’s decision to participate in the 9th December discussions raises ethical questions. The Scottish Government’s model code of conduct for standards in public life states that when confronted with a potential conflict of interest, members of public bodies must conduct ‘the objective test’ before proceeding. This test is severe. The member must consider ‘not only whether you will be influenced but whether anybody else would think that you might be influenced by the interest’.

Would a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, ‘reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your discussion or decision making in your role as a member of a public body’? If there is even the possibility that a member of the public would regard the member as conflicted, then that member must withdraw.

In this instance the plain facts of the matter are that Mr Kennedy was the subject of outstanding complaints about his conduct made by members of a regulated grazings committee at the moment when the regulator, led by Mr Kennedy, took a questionable decision to remove that committee from office.

Indeed, as Mr Kennedy had chaired the November meeting between crofters and Commission in Upper Coll, we can only presume that it was on Mr Kennedy’s recommendation that the decision to sack the Upper Coll committee was made.

Mr Kennedy’s central role in the Upper Coll case casts further doubt on his judgement and fitness for public life – was it reasonable for him to have led on such a sensitive and controversial issue when he knew there were complaints outstanding against him?

The convener’s conduct in relation to Upper Coll is yet another straw on the back of the Commission donkey, already groaning under the weight of a series of related controversies about its competence and fitness for purpose. If the load of straw keeps getting heavier then at some point the accumulated weight will break the Commission’s back; the regulator will have lost the confidence of the electorate of crofters that it is there to regulate – indeed, Alastair Culbertson and Duncan MacDonald’s recent contributions to the debate demonstrate that confidence in the Commission has already evaporated even for crofters beyond Lewis.

To restore confidence in crofting regulation the Scottish Government’s recently announced review of Commission procedures must fully examine not only the organisation’s future working, but also the recent series of serious complaints which have cost it public trust.

If the practical reasoning and ethical standards of Commission members are found to be wanting, it is in the public interest for the Government to take action and to be seen to be taking action against those members upon whom responsibility is found to rest – including, if necessary, their removal from office. (Such actions should not preclude disbanding the Commission at a later date in favour of another form of regulation.)

Further, it is in the interests of the openness and transparency to which the Commission says it is “strongly committed” that the result of this investigation be fully and freely available to the crofting electorate.

Dr Iain MacKinnon is researching the politics of crofting at Coventry University, although this letter is not part of his academic work.

But despite manycalls over several weeks for him to consider his position there is no sign of him stepping down anytime soon. In the absence of him doing the right thing is it time for the Scottish Ministers to force his hand?

This issue was raised at the meeting in Stornoway on 3rd August. This is how the West Highland Free Press reported the view thereon by Scottish Government crofting policy officer Lucy Carmichael and my response thereto:-

Ms Carmichael explained that the way crofting legislation is framed the only recourse available to crofters is to mount a challenge in the land court.

However, that was fiercely disputed by Mr Inkster who said that as the commission is a statutory body under the control of the Scottish Government it was perfectly legitimate for ministers to intervene if they felt it appropriate.

But Ms Carmichael felt that would be a “big step” – a statement which drew a sharp intake of breath from the audience, particularly those in Upper Coll who felt their removal from office was equally a big step and, indeed, unconstitutional.

Mr Inkster said that the commission had knowingly gone against their own legal advice, changed the guidance to common grazings committees and misinterpreted crofting legislation. “It is hard to see under such circumstances that anyone can have any confidence in any new guidance given out by the commission,” he said.

I would point out, if I recall correctly, that Lucy Carmichael also made reference to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland as other possible routes of recourse that crofters could take in addition to or instead of action via the Scottish Land Court.

I would strongly suggest therefore that the Crofting Commission should, in all the circumstances, review this extraordinary decision. If they fail to do so the Scottish Government should maybe question the behaviour involved and perhaps even consider removing the commissioners responsible as “unsuitable to continue” as members. A power that the Scottish Ministers have at their disposal under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. That may be seen by many as a more reasonable and justified use of power than that employed by the Crofting Commission.

46 blog posts on the common grazings debacle later and I am firmly of the view that it would indeed be a more reasonable and justified use of power than that employed by the Crofting Commission.

On Wednesday night, more than 80 people gathered at a meeting in the Stornoway town hall to discuss the impact of unrest/conflict between the Crofting Commission and the Grazing Committees.

They put forward a vote of no confidence in the commission, and agreed that Colin Kennedy should resign from his position as the convener of the Crofting Commission.

The Commission had no official representation at the meeting.

Iain MacIver who is himself a Township Clerk said:-

The turnout tonight shows the interest in crofting, and how worried people are of the situation as it is now that they understand it.

It is easy to see that people are very angry about the way in which some of the villages were dealt.

They want to see how the Commission works, and how the law works, lessons to be learnt so that crofting stands in a better position.

The lack of trust vote shows the feelings that are there, but at the end of the day it is up to the government what they are going to do.

I think that the thing that worried people most, was if the people going forward were to be idle in their roles as Town Clerk , and also the Commission itself with the situation as it is now.

But we hope in the coming months that people will gain confidence and be given the right guidance so that crofting can be strengthened, instead of weakened, and that the Government endeavours to make this happen, and that they won’t ruin it as people suspected they would. That was the consensus this evening.

A meeting attended by eighty crofters in Stornoway concluded that a Crofting Commission is good for crofting, but it is currently not fit for purpose so the convener, Colin Kennedy, must go.

A crofting meeting organised by the Scottish Crofting Federation held in Stornoway last week, attended by eighty crofters from townships all over Lewis and Harris, gave a clear message to the Scottish Government: the convener of the Crofting Commission must step down; the Upper Coll grazings committee must be re-instated; the current Crofting Commission must be sorted out by Scottish Government but, nonetheless, a Commission is essential to crofting.

It was a loud and clear message coming out of a very lively but thoughtful discussion. This is not knee-jerk reaction; the attack on common grazings committees by the Crofting Commission has been on-going now for several months so crofters have had plenty of time to think about this. It is not surprising that there is a call for the convener of the Commission to stand down and for deposed committees to be re-instated. It is perhaps more notable that, despite what is widely regarded as very poor behaviour, the Crofting Commission is still wanted, albeit following a thorough review and improvement of procedures. I think that this is a very sensible approach.

The meeting heard presentations from representatives of the removed Lewis grazings committees, SCF, Inksters Solicitors and Scottish Government, not only on the topic of the Crofting Commission but also on CAP, support to crofting and advocacy for crofting. The meeting, that sometimes became quite heated, was well-chaired by SCF member Donald MacSween.

Mr Smith continued:-

We can understand the Scottish Government’s reluctance to interfere with a majority-elected body, but the meeting was united in its view that the Scottish Government does have to intervene in this circumstance. The procedures of the Commission clearly need to be investigated and modified to stop this sort of thing happening again. The Crofting Commission may well be an ‘arms-length government body’, but the Scottish Government still has a responsibility to make sure that the Commission operates in a fair and reasonable manner – and does possess the powers to intervene, for example by removing a Commissioner, if it sees fit.

Following discussions a vote was called on the motion:-

this meeting has no confidence in the existing Crofting Commission and supports the SCF call for the resignation of the convener Colin Kennedy.

The motion was passed by an overwhelming majority.

Anger in Stornoway aimed at commission – West Highland Free Press

The sense of anger at the recent actions of the Crofting Commission was laid bare at a public meeting in Stornoway last week attended by over 80 people, which delivered an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the organisation and called for the resignation of its convener Colin Kennedy….

As the meeting was drawing to a close a vote of no confidence in the existing commission was passed as well as a call for the resignation of its convener. An overwhelming majority supported the moves with only five of those present against – three of whom are the crofters in Upper Coll who raised the original complaint against the committee, including a father and son.

The Crofting Commission is committed to working positively with grazings committees and crofters. At present, the Commission is undertaking an examination of the circumstances of the recent cases, so that any lessons learnt can inform future procedures and decision-making.

A majority of the Crofting Commissioners are elected by crofters, with no involvement on the part of Commission staff in the process, so any consideration of their position is a matter for the individual Commissioner.

It should not be forgotten that consideration of the position of Crofting Commissioners is also a matter for Scottish Ministers and I will look at that further in my next post.

Post navigation

Search the Crofting Law Blog

Search for:

Subscribe to this Blog via E-mail

Enter your e-mail address to subscribe to the Crofting Law Blog and receive notifications of new posts by e-mail:-

Email Address

About the Crofting Law Blog

This blog explores crofting law.
It is brought to you by Inksters Solicitors, a law firm specialising in crofting law, with offices in Glasgow, Inverness, Forfar, Portree, Wick and a visiting base in Lerwick.
The main authors of posts on this blog are Brian Inkster and Martin Minton.